Crew Incapacitation vs Tech. Aeroplane
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2006
Aviation Qualifications: ATCO
Posts: 556
Likes: 53
Crew Incapacitation vs Tech. Aeroplane
Recently had family members return from the Med' who having boarded, been strapped in and about to be pushed back, were informed that due to a member of the flight crew feeling unwell, they'd all have to disembark, would be reunited with their bags, and were to wait in the terminal for further instructions.
The usual shambles ensued, culminating in a 23hr delay and overnight stay in very basic, (non-hotel), accommodation.
The operator's representative made a great deal of informing passengers that as crew incapacitation was an "extraordinary circumstance", financial compensation would NOT be forthcoming.
Got me to thinking that such and excuse, when the aircraft had actually gone "Tech", would be a terrific wheeze on the part of operators wishing to avoid hefty claims for compensation. After all, if the FO suddenly developed a dicky tummy that just happened to be coincident with a warning light illuminating on a panel, who could say otherwise?
Is my suspicious and cynical mind just getting the better of me do you recon?
The usual shambles ensued, culminating in a 23hr delay and overnight stay in very basic, (non-hotel), accommodation.
The operator's representative made a great deal of informing passengers that as crew incapacitation was an "extraordinary circumstance", financial compensation would NOT be forthcoming.
Got me to thinking that such and excuse, when the aircraft had actually gone "Tech", would be a terrific wheeze on the part of operators wishing to avoid hefty claims for compensation. After all, if the FO suddenly developed a dicky tummy that just happened to be coincident with a warning light illuminating on a panel, who could say otherwise?
Is my suspicious and cynical mind just getting the better of me do you recon?
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2006
Aviation Qualifications: ATCO
Posts: 556
Likes: 53
Whilst appreciating it's a crappy situation for crew, operator and pax alike, which party is best placed to absorb the financial impact?
The operator, who will still be handing out dividends to shareholders irrespective?
Or the guy on not much north of minimum wage, who having had to take a days unpaid leave will now be taking home only 19 days salary this month, instead of the usual 20?
The operator, who will still be handing out dividends to shareholders irrespective?
Or the guy on not much north of minimum wage, who having had to take a days unpaid leave will now be taking home only 19 days salary this month, instead of the usual 20?
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 541
Likes: 75
From: 30 Miles from the A1
Under EU261, even the death of a pilot cannot be deemed an extraordinary event following this judgement by The Court of Justice of the EU.
Death of Pilot and EU 261
Tad harsh maybe but rules is rules!
Death of Pilot and EU 261
Tad harsh maybe but rules is rules!
Joined: Mar 2002
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 3,388
Likes: 321
From: near an aeroplane
The wording of the EU 261 article is such that airlines have been given a lot of leeway in avoiding paying out compensation, or so it seems. Judgements like the ones mentioned above are what really defines where the boundaries are. So while it seems harsh, a judge stating that crew incapacitation is a reasonable thing to expect from time to time means that compensation much be paid out. The airline can hedge their bets and position spare crew at many stations, but that costs them money, so they accept the risk. What is a bit of a nuisance is many airlines defaulting to 'it's an extraordinary circumstance' instead of just paying out the compensation. Just my two cents.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2006
Aviation Qualifications: ATCO
Posts: 556
Likes: 53
The link which under_exposed posted above in response to my first post is interesting in that despite the UKSC ruling, which the article details, and despite operators presumably being well aware of such, Reps continue to advise Pax (wrongly) that they are not entitled to claim compensation under circumstances involving crew incapacitation.
Therefore those taking the word of the Rep at face value will ultimately be financially penalised.
One can't help feeling justified in having a suspicious and cynical mind where operators are concerned...
Therefore those taking the word of the Rep at face value will ultimately be financially penalised.
One can't help feeling justified in having a suspicious and cynical mind where operators are concerned...
Joined: Dec 2015
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 871
Likes: 673
From: Budapest
The operators have a choice, either stand the cost of standby crews (and the prestige that goes with it) or pay compensation. One thing is certain, the fare paying passenger should not lose out due to circumstances totally beyond their control, part4 to the degree described by the OP.
Paxing All Over The World
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,842
Likes: 328
From: Hertfordshire, UK.
The cost of paying compensation will, almost certainly, be considerably less than standby crews. It is also possible that they bet on many people not claiming or not getting all the way through to payment.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2006
Aviation Qualifications: ATCO
Posts: 556
Likes: 53
Update...
Despite the Rep's assertion on the day, the carrier has agreed to the statutory £350 compensation for each pax in my family party.
Just hope the remaining SLF don't take the Rep at face value.
Despite the Rep's assertion on the day, the carrier has agreed to the statutory £350 compensation for each pax in my family party.
Just hope the remaining SLF don't take the Rep at face value.
